Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2021 9:01:11 GMT -6
And man, I think I’ve read every review comparison on the internet over the last several months between the Aurora (n) and Apollo X’s. The overwhelming majority of people favored the Lynx as having the superior sonics. And you know it’s true if the internet said it was! I have both an x8p and Aurora (n). The Aurora eats the Apollo for lunch on conversion. I always find this a little odd, in terms of specification it's the other way round. What exactly makes the technically inferior solution more superior exactly? Yes, I know specs mean little in terms of personal preference and I must admit if it wasn't for some bugs I'd have kept my MOTU 1248 because for me it sounded great. Still, I have heard the (n) when I was shopping last time (I tested out a UFX, Apollo, Symphony 2X6) and ended up with the Apollo. Not that I really care when we're talking about converters at this level, I bought the Apollo because years ago I invested in UA plugs and couldn't use them later on.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on May 19, 2021 9:36:32 GMT -6
Just was looking...the Auroras ain’t cheap...I guess for what you get. Definitely not cheap. However, consider that they put all their research into making the most state of the art transparent conversion that their engineers and tech can muster. That's really their game. Feature wise, not anything like an Apollo, but that's a different thing. The modularity of the unit is a big plus, being able to customize it with lynx preamps, ADAT, analog ins/outs, different interface cards for HD/Dante/TB2/TB3 etc. Pretty fine units.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on May 19, 2021 9:58:16 GMT -6
I have both an x8p and Aurora (n). The Aurora eats the Apollo for lunch on conversion. I always find this a little odd, in terms of specification it's the other way round. What exactly makes the technically inferior solution more superior exactly? Yes, I know specs mean little in terms of personal preference and I must admit if it wasn't for some bugs I'd have kept my MOTU 1248 because for me it sounded great. Still, I have heard the (n) when I was shopping last time (I tested out a UFX, Apollo, Symphony 2X6) and ended up with the Apollo. Not that I really care when we're talking about converters at this level, I bought the Apollo because years ago I invested in UA plugs and couldn't use them later on. Unsure, I'm not up on the technical specs of these things. It is a little hard to compare because they don't provide exactly the same measurements. It's not apparent to me that the Apollo wins in every corner. The Lynx is actually better in frequency response. Apollo gets as low as +/- .04 on the x8p line inputs. The Aurora (n) is at +/- .010. Lynx also provides some specs that Apollo doesn't, crosstalk and common mode rejection, for example.
Perhaps there is more to it than dynamic range? I know people quote that a lot about the Apollos. I just don't think it's the whole story.
I have no idea how, but the Lynx just sounds better on both sides of the conversion to me. More space, more depth, more effortlessly clear. The Apollo, while it doesn't sound so bad when I record through it and listen back on the Lynx, sounds pretty strained/choked to me by comparison on playback.
It's something I could live with and make records on as I have done them on far, far less converters and preamps, but having both here I would certainly choose the Lynx most of the time.
Horses for courses.
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 19, 2021 10:28:42 GMT -6
Could always keep the 828es and add that svartbox in the classifieds for high end ad/da using the spdif ports.
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on May 19, 2021 10:30:31 GMT -6
I have both an x8p and Aurora (n). The Aurora eats the Apollo for lunch on conversion. I always find this a little odd, in terms of specification it's the other way round. What exactly makes the technically inferior solution more superior exactly? Yes, I know specs mean little in terms of personal preference and I must admit if it wasn't for some bugs I'd have kept my MOTU 1248 because for me it sounded great. Still, I have heard the (n) when I was shopping last time (I tested out a UFX, Apollo, Symphony 2X6) and ended up with the Apollo. Not that I really care when we're talking about converters at this level, I bought the Apollo because years ago I invested in UA plugs and couldn't use them later on. Funny enough, just yesterday I read someone saying that UAD straight up just gives the technical specifications of the chips themselves, but Lynx gives technical specifications of the chips as used in their circuit. That'd be quite a difference and would explain why Apollo's have better specs than Lynx, but have people saying that the Lynx actually sounds better.
I have no idea how much truth there is to that. But that would explain the discrepancy.
I still have an internal struggle about whether or not I should have gone Apollo X.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2021 10:31:47 GMT -6
I always find this a little odd, in terms of specification it's the other way round. What exactly makes the technically inferior solution more superior exactly? Yes, I know specs mean little in terms of personal preference and I must admit if it wasn't for some bugs I'd have kept my MOTU 1248 because for me it sounded great. Still, I have heard the (n) when I was shopping last time (I tested out a UFX, Apollo, Symphony 2X6) and ended up with the Apollo. Not that I really care when we're talking about converters at this level, I bought the Apollo because years ago I invested in UA plugs and couldn't use them later on. Unsure, I'm not up on the technical specs of these things. It is a little hard to compare because they don't provide exactly the same measurements. It's not apparent to me that the Apollo wins in every corner. The Lynx is actually better in frequency response. Apollo gets as low as +/- .04 on the x8p line inputs. The Aurora (n) is at +/- .010. Lynx also provides some specs that Apollo doesn't, crosstalk and common mode rejection, for example.
Perhaps there is more to it than dynamic range? I know people quote that a lot about the Apollos. I just don't think it's the whole story.
I have no idea how, but the Lynx just sounds better on both sides of the conversion to me. More space, more depth, more effortlessly clear. The Apollo, while it doesn't sound so bad when I record through it and listen back on the Lynx, sounds pretty strained/choked to me by comparison on playback.
It's something I could live with and make records on as I have done them on far, far less converters and preamps, but having both here I would certainly choose the Lynx most of the time.
Horses for courses.
Yeah, the manual goes a bit more into depth with THD+N, Freq R, etc. but there's nothing super descriptive.. I just find it interesting mainly, it's strange how everything falls together. We of course have different ears / treatment / monitors and room, I find the Apollo to be almost synthetically clear / wide and pronounced. That did make me umm and arr about sending it back, after all it could impact audio decisions. Although the clarity of bass really did help me make a few better decisions so I kept it, the plugs helped as well. Also between the Symphony, UA, MOTU and Aurora they were different for sure, although it wasn't like comparing them to a Focusrite Scarlett. None worse or better just different.. End of the day if something makes someone work better awesome. Again, that statement just piqued my curiosity..
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on May 19, 2021 10:35:34 GMT -6
I always find this a little odd, in terms of specification it's the other way round. What exactly makes the technically inferior solution more superior exactly? Yes, I know specs mean little in terms of personal preference and I must admit if it wasn't for some bugs I'd have kept my MOTU 1248 because for me it sounded great. Still, I have heard the (n) when I was shopping last time (I tested out a UFX, Apollo, Symphony 2X6) and ended up with the Apollo. Not that I really care when we're talking about converters at this level, I bought the Apollo because years ago I invested in UA plugs and couldn't use them later on. Funny enough, just yesterday I read someone saying that UAD straight up just gives the technical specifications of the chips themselves, but Lynx gives technical specifications of the chips as used in their circuit. That'd be quite a difference and would explain why Apollo's have better specs than Lynx, but have people saying that the Lynx actually sounds better.
I have no idea how much truth there is to that. But that would explain the discrepancy.
I still have an internal struggle about whether or not I should have gone Apollo X.
Yea that would make quite a difference as the circuit implementation is where the gold is. Who knows, though.
Don't struggle, man. Just listen.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on May 19, 2021 10:40:31 GMT -6
Unsure, I'm not up on the technical specs of these things. It is a little hard to compare because they don't provide exactly the same measurements. It's not apparent to me that the Apollo wins in every corner. The Lynx is actually better in frequency response. Apollo gets as low as +/- .04 on the x8p line inputs. The Aurora (n) is at +/- .010. Lynx also provides some specs that Apollo doesn't, crosstalk and common mode rejection, for example.
Perhaps there is more to it than dynamic range? I know people quote that a lot about the Apollos. I just don't think it's the whole story.
I have no idea how, but the Lynx just sounds better on both sides of the conversion to me. More space, more depth, more effortlessly clear. The Apollo, while it doesn't sound so bad when I record through it and listen back on the Lynx, sounds pretty strained/choked to me by comparison on playback.
It's something I could live with and make records on as I have done them on far, far less converters and preamps, but having both here I would certainly choose the Lynx most of the time.
Horses for courses.
Yeah, the manual goes a bit more into depth with THD+N, Freq R, etc. but yeah there's nothing super descriptive.. I just find it interesting mainly, it's strange how everything falls together. We of course have different ears / treatment / monitors and room, I find the Apollo to be almost synthetically clear / wide and pronounced. That did make me umm and arr about sending it back, after all it could impact audio decisions. Although the clarity of bass really did help me make a few better decisions so I kept it, the plugs helped as well. Also between the Symphony, UA, MOTU and Aurora they were different for sure, although it wasn't like comparing them to a Focusrite Scarlett. None worse or better just different.. End of the day if something makes someone work better awesome. Again, that statement just piqued my curiosity.. Well, that is true that things can fall together or not, so to speak. True on the ears, treatment, monitors and room, too. Apollo is definitely record worthy and in pro-league. I just feel like the Lynx is better, that's all. The studio nearby is Immersive sound/9.1 classical this and that. They use merging tech pres/conversion. I think those are possibly the best I've heard. But I sort of draw the line there. That gets into "too much" territory for me.
I wish I had more answers for you. I think this sort of thing is typical in the audio world, though. Rode mics outspec Neumann's on paper(smoothed plots don't tell an honest story though) but a lot of the time I think people will like the Neumann better. I love my Hardy M-2. It's straight up magic, but sometimes my more classic design more poorly spec'd pre's win the day. It's more of an apples to oranges comparison because converters are their own thing and we're talking fidelity at it's max. But I think it's still fairly typical of the business. Kind of one of those mysteries I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2021 10:44:20 GMT -6
I always find this a little odd, in terms of specification it's the other way round. What exactly makes the technically inferior solution more superior exactly? Yes, I know specs mean little in terms of personal preference and I must admit if it wasn't for some bugs I'd have kept my MOTU 1248 because for me it sounded great. Still, I have heard the (n) when I was shopping last time (I tested out a UFX, Apollo, Symphony 2X6) and ended up with the Apollo. Not that I really care when we're talking about converters at this level, I bought the Apollo because years ago I invested in UA plugs and couldn't use them later on. Funny enough, just yesterday I read someone saying that UAD straight up just gives the technical specifications of the chips themselves, but Lynx gives technical specifications of the chips as used in their circuit. That'd be quite a difference and would explain why Apollo's have better specs than Lynx, but have people saying that the Lynx actually sounds better.
I have no idea how much truth there is to that. But that would explain the discrepancy.
I still have an internal struggle about whether or not I should have gone Apollo X.
I wouldn't buy into random speculation, from the Apollo manual: "All specifications are typical performance unless otherwise noted. Tested with the Audio Precision APx555 Audio Analyzer under the following conditions: 48 kHz internal sample rate, 24-bit sample depth, 20 kHz measurement bandwidth, +24 dBu headroom, balanced output, and internal clock." Although as we all know specs don't mean much in terms of preference, not saying that the Aurora is anywhere similar in comparison but remember the GS love for the Steinberg's? I remember the specs and they weren't great for a prosumer interface.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on May 19, 2021 10:50:13 GMT -6
Have had all 3 Apollo 8 (sf,bf and x) and my sf modded by bla, 2192, b2, symphony mkii and now Aurora N: definitely prefer the N: conversion wars are over here.
I just focus of getting it right at source and using the minimum plugs while mixing.
|
|
|
Post by guitfiddler on May 19, 2021 16:15:12 GMT -6
Guitfiddler, I was just chatting with a friend about the Dangerous Music converters vs. the Aurora. I'm really looking forward to your comparison. It's not so easy to get two pieces like that in the same room. That was the plan, but I had a minor set back due to being so busy with work and extra expenses that I had to push it back possibly a month! Ugh!!!!!! Killing me to hear these converters, but to be honest I could really be content with the Dangerous Converters. I need more I/O, the Lynx Aurora(N) look to be the next converter for my setup by collecting info from different sources while researching. The true test is hearing it, can't wait.
|
|
|
Post by spankjamer on Oct 24, 2021 10:33:55 GMT -6
Are you sure the clock isn't making it sound better on transients than the Hilo? The Aurora (n)?
I'm currently on an Aurora (n) and would like something more for monitoring but I'm afraid the Aurora (n) will sound more contemporary than the Hilo? What about the headphone amp?
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Oct 24, 2021 17:03:37 GMT -6
Are you sure the clock isn't making it sound better on transients than the Hilo? The Aurora (n)? I'm currently on an Aurora (n) and would like something more for monitoring but I'm afraid the Aurora (n) will sound more contemporary than the Hilo? What about the headphone amp? You want a better DA than the Aurora N? The Aurora N DA is fantastic
|
|
|
Post by spankjamer on Oct 25, 2021 4:38:40 GMT -6
Are you sure the clock isn't making it sound better on transients than the Hilo? The Aurora (n)? I'm currently on an Aurora (n) and would like something more for monitoring but I'm afraid the Aurora (n) will sound more contemporary than the Hilo? What about the headphone amp? You want a better DA than the Aurora N? The Aurora N DA is fantastic No, I want to swap my Aurora (n) for a Hilo though because it is a lot more portable and I don't need a breakout box from dsub to xlr. Problem is just that I'm afraid that I might lose transient response due to the Aurora (n) being newer.
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Oct 25, 2021 5:54:25 GMT -6
You want a better DA than the Aurora N? The Aurora N DA is fantastic No, I want to swap my Aurora (n) for a Hilo though because it is a lot more portable and I don't need a breakout box from dsub to xlr. Problem is just that I'm afraid that I might lose transient response due to the Aurora (n) being newer. Ah I see. I’d send this to Lynx support, they answer pretty quickly and will probably have the best answer for you.
|
|
|
Post by aremos on Oct 25, 2021 13:55:05 GMT -6
You want a better DA than the Aurora N? The Aurora N DA is fantastic No, I want to swap my Aurora (n) for a Hilo though because it is a lot more portable and I don't need a breakout box from dsub to xlr. Problem is just that I'm afraid that I might lose transient response due to the Aurora (n) being newer. According to Lynx, Hilo is "still" their top convertor.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Oct 25, 2021 14:05:48 GMT -6
I thought the Aurora N and Hilo conversion were the same: it’s the bells and whistles that differ ?
|
|
|
Post by Mister Chase on Oct 25, 2021 14:41:42 GMT -6
I thought the Aurora N and Hilo conversion were the same: it’s the bells and whistles that differ ? I think I mentioned in another thread that they just weren't able to get the same specs in the smaller space required by the (n) boards. The Hilo has a lot more real estate for 2 channels and they could really stretch out the design by comparison, is what was implied when I spoke with a dealer.
|
|
|
Post by spankjamer on Oct 30, 2021 10:19:54 GMT -6
I thought the Aurora N and Hilo conversion were the same: it’s the bells and whistles that differ ? I think I mentioned in another thread that they just weren't able to get the same specs in the smaller space required by the (n) boards. The Hilo has a lot more real estate for 2 channels and they could really stretch out the design by comparison, is what was implied when I spoke with a dealer. I'll compare them both tonight but you gotta remember that the Aurora (n) has a newer clock and possibly better transient response through that but a slightly higher noise floor than the Aurora (n), about 5 dB more due to the many channels next to each other. But a slightly higher noise floor with a newer clock might sound more precise when it comes to differentiating resonances, that's what I'll be checking out. The Hilo still has the old Aurora orange clock while the N has a new clock. I also asked Lynx a while back about whether they'd release a card with 2 channels just for monitoring for the Aurora (n) and they were considering it, which would be very attractive as an installed card for the N and the flexibility with the new clock.
|
|